boyohboy

<p>Shun Cheung wrote:</p>

 

<p><em>At least according to this review (and the little bit of French I can read), this lens is weak on the wide, 10mm end; in particular, edge performance is mediocre. Unfortunately, that is very much expected.</em> <br /><br>

"Mediocre" is the right word to describe it. The problem is that it does not clean up very well even above f/8, and 12mm is not notably better. The images below are from the lower left corner of my copy of the 10-24. It is the least sharp corner, but not by much. Camera is D90 on a tripod, level and square to the wall<br>

Nikon 10-24mm @ 10mm<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3636/3624336842_d2f085a4c6_b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Nikon 10-24mm @ 12mm<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2438/3624336862_331173f9dd_b.jpg" alt="" /><br>

The even bigger problem is that a good copy of the Sigma 10-20 absolutely wipes the floor with the Nikon 10-24 (and matched the Nikon 12-24 at 12mm). Note that the image below is from a D40 taken about a year ago. I have attempted to maintain a similar crop<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2429/3624336888_506aa46bd5_o.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="400" /><br>

At this point I am debating whether to just send the 10-24 back and attempt to get a Sigma that is as good as the one that I used to have (and which I sold like a complete mor*n about a year ago), or ask J&R to send me another copy of the 10-24. Anyone care to share their experience with the 10-24?<br>

In Nikon's defense, I have owned three copies of the 10-20, two of them for less than a week, on account of significant softness on the entire left side of the frame.</p>

<p> </p>

 

<p>Count me among the dissapointed --- significantly so. Over the past 5 years I have owned, in order:<br>

1) Tokina 12-24: good lens but not wide enough, got tired of CA corrections all the time<br>

2) Sigma 10-20: had a great copy and sold it like a complete idi*t because someone sold me a Nikon 12-24 at a price that was difficult to refuse, and I managed to talk myself into believing that I will not miss the 10-12mm range<br>

3) Nikon 12-24: good lens but not wide enough, sold it<br>

4) Nikon 10-24: my latest toy and the subject of this post<br>

With the exception of the 10-24 I had taken each of the lenses to the brick wall exactly once to make sure there are no gross issues. I have been back with the 10-24 three times to confirm that I am not making a stupid mistake, and I keep getting the same results.<br>

Samples are below, all at 12 mm and f/8. The changes in WB, image size, etc, are because these images were taken over a span on 4 years with a D70 (Tokina), D200 (Sigma), D40 (Nikon 12-24) and D90 (Nikon 10-24). I am not posting 100% crops intentionally to see if people agree with me that the 10-24 is loosing the battle handily. Any comments?</p>

<p>Nikon 10-24 12mm f/8<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3297/3618390601_bc68c29e37_b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Sigma 10-20 12mm f/8<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3320/3618390667_57ced11b07_b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Tokina 12-24 12mm f/8<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2451/3619208830_b772d1a569_b.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Nikon 12-24mm 12mm f/8<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3299/3618390541_c73084d131_b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I used to have a Sigma 10-20 with <a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3407/3605809922_8e4438320e_b.jpg">pretty good corner performance</a> . Then I bought a 12-24 at a great price and convinced myself that I am better off with the Nikon and sold the Sigma. I was wrong, wrong, wrong, I missed the 10-12mm range a lot, so I bought a new Sigma last week, with <a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3561/3605778884_b34cc5e094_b.jpg">absolutely terrible decentering issues</a> (note how the entire left side of the frame is softer than the right side). As of tonight it is on the truck back to the dealer and I did something I thought I would never do --- I bought the 10-24 from J&R for $770 when everything was said and done (live.com cashback). It better be at least as good as my old Sigma and I will not complain about the extra $450 I spent on it...</p>

 

One more Bjorn-influenced purchase here. I am buying it mainly to supplement by 24/2.8 AI for those "in the sun" shots, of which I seem to do quite a few. I just bought one off FleaBay for $140, cosmetically rough, but is supposed to be optically good. We shall see. With all those MFs I have been getting after purchasing a D200 I should probably invest in a KatzEye